who started with the language that obviously was not agreed on? break out those Stormfront photos....
A few days ago, I was on Larry King Live on CNN. the topic was terrorism and specifically the Christmas Day aerial bombing effort by a self-described Al Qaeda agent of an airliner near Detroit.
One of the other guests was Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. He said, at least as I understood it -- and I could be mistaken -- that the real fault for this terror attack lies with the United States for provoking al Qaeda by "occupying their land" --this is a paraphrase. I expressed shock at this line of approach. Rep. Paul -- as I recall -- said again that the U.S. was causing these attacks by our being "occupiers."
I said this line was something like "the tired old anti-Semitic line." I said this because in my long experience, those who talk about the U.S. "occupying" Moslem lands soon go to criticism of the U.S. for helping Israel -- a line long associated with Rep. Paul, as I understand, and again, maybe I am misinformed -- and then to biting criticism of Israel and then to bitter comments about Jews generally.
I was about to add that I was sure that Rep. Paul was not going that far. But Rep. Paul became so upset that I could not get in a word.
So let me say right now that if Rep. Paul says he is not taking that line, and is not an anti-Semite, I believe him, good for him and I am happy to know him.
That is what I would have said if I had been allowed to talk. Happy New Year.
Ron Paul has equated Israel with occupation in the past...
let it be a lesson for anyone who thinks Ron Paul can be debated fairly. As for Stein he should be ashamed for saying it isn't Islam that is the problem.
